- Pronouns
- he/him
I just don’t think it’s something they take seriously.This is just incorrect as explained by the other posts in this thread.
I just don’t think it’s something they take seriously.This is just incorrect as explained by the other posts in this thread.
Yeah that’s what I meant, maybe not worded well. Connections between individual games existed but I don’t think they ever had a grand picture of how the overarching timeline looked while working on each game.And as for the timeline having not been established from the beginning, that’s simply not the case for the majority of Zelda games. Prior to the full official timeline being revealed in the Hyrule Historia, the following timeline threads were all pretty much already 100% confirmed around the release of each respective game:
To be fair / pedantic, that's different from the "at all" in your original post.I just don’t think it’s something they take seriously.
Found this nugget from 2002, around Wind Waker's release:The Zelda developers always focus on gameplay front and foremost. But that doesn't mean they don't know the story and lore of their own games. These developers have spent tens of thousands of hours making these Zelda games, they know more about the franchise then even the most dedicated Zelda fans.
Q: Where does The Wind Waker fit into the overall timeline of the Legend of Zelda?
Aonuma-san:
In terms of the storyline, we've decided that this takes place 100 years after the events in the Ocarina of Time. We think that as you play through the game, you'll notice that in the beginning the storyline explains some of the events in the Ocarina of Time. And, you'll find hints of things from Ocarina of Time exist in The Wink Waker, too.
There's also a more complicated explanation. If you think back to the end of the Ocarina of Time, there were two time period endings to that game. First Link defeated Ganon as an adult and he actually went back to being a child. You could actually say that the ending where he was an adult, The Wind Waker would take place 100 years after that.
I don’t know how you can really come to that conclusion if you’ve actually been following the series and playing the games, let alone reading the developer’s own words, but okay. It’s not a priority in early development, and gameplay will always come first, but the timeline is absolutely something that is seriously considered, and that’s been made clear time and time again. I mean, they literally made an origin game that explains the whole endless cycle of Links, Zeldas, and Ganondorfs/Ganon-likes.I just don’t think it’s something they take seriously.
Well, Miyamoto said as far back as 2003 that they have a master timeline document that the developers refer to when making the Zelda games, and Aonuma later corroborated that fact in 2007 when he confirmed that such a document exists on his PC, so it’s very much the case that they have indeed had this overarching timeline to consult while making each game. Some details may have shifted over the years when it comes to the games that didn’t have firm placements before like the Oracle games, and we can’t say for sure when the Downfall Timeline was officially conceived (though after FSA’s plot changes would be my assumption), but the overall picture has absolutely been there based on what the developers have said themselves.Yeah that’s what I meant, maybe not worded well. Connections between individual games existed but I don’t think they ever had a grand picture of how the overarching timeline looked while working on each game.
Most of that sounds good on paper but it falls apart with all of the games so reliant on OoT (or retroactively tied to it). Don’t have a problem with the Child / Adult split in OoT, the next two 3D Zelda games took it into account and followed up both sides; but their best solution to fill the holes being a “Link failed in OoT” branch is very silly, and that’s the extent of how I feel about it.
- Zelda II is a sequel to the original.
- ALttP is a prequel to the original.
- LA is a sequel to ALttP.
- OoT is a prequel to ALttP.
- MM is a sequel to OoT.
- Oracle games are vaguely tied to the other 2D games.
- FS is before everything else up to this point.
- TWW is also a sequel to OoT.
- TMC is a prequel to FS and the new earliest game; also intended to be the origin of the hero’s cap (whoops).
- FSA is sometime after FS and was also intended to connect to ALttP (whoops).
- TP is also a sequel to OoT but set after MM.
- PH and ST directly follow Wind Waker and each other.
This i agree. People get legit angry at people doing timeline speculation and it confuses me.As someone with just a passing interest in the Zelda games' overarching timeline, I will say the people who shit on the the mere concept of people enjoying there being such a thing have far surpassed the timeline enthusiasts in their annoyance and smugness. Like several times over.
Neither are real or interesting. Why would either one be true? Why would they make a game with one story, but secretly have it be something else? Just seems like a misundering of subtext and doing a deep reading of a text. I hate fan theories.
What the hell are you talking about?Because Link went into the Lost Woods without a fairy and later became a Stalfos. The theory is more likely correct than it is incorrect.
What the hell are you talking about?
??????????????????????????????Quite obviously the beginning of Majora's Mask? Like how did you miss that?
but Miyamoto hates unique stories, lore and the fans. He actively doesn't get it despite being an iconic successful visionary in the industry for over 40 years now and existing stories of developers who admire him and his additions to their games even todayShigeru Miyamoto being the one demanding explanations for the story while the leads want to just forget about it is tremendously damaging to anti-Miyamoto rhetoric
??????????????????????????????
Well he didn't become a god damned skeleton thats for sureSo are you saying: "Because Link went into the Lost Woods without a fairy..." didn't happen in Majora's Mask?
Well he didn't become a god damned skeleton thats for sure
I mean, yeah, he eventually died, but not in majoras mask. Nothing in that article implies he went the lost forest and became a skel of tonne. Also its fandom+ratio+bald![]()
Hero's Spirit
"White Wolf" redirects here. For the recurring enemy in The Legend of Zelda series, see White Wolfos. The Hero's Spirit[5], also known as the Hero’s Shade, is a character appearing in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. The Hero's Spirit is a skeletal specter who can assume the form of the...zelda.fandom.com
Jesus fucking Christ, the level in this thread, fuck me.
If Zelda fans want to treat Hyrule Historia and the Encyclopedia as the Zelda Holy Scriptures you can’t ignore the facts they set out about Hero’s Shade:![]()
Hero's Spirit
"White Wolf" redirects here. For the recurring enemy in The Legend of Zelda series, see White Wolfos. The Hero's Spirit[5], also known as the Hero’s Shade, is a character appearing in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. The Hero's Spirit is a skeletal specter who can assume the form of the...zelda.fandom.com
Jesus fucking Christ, the level in this thread, fuck me.
If Zelda fans want to treat Hyrule Historia and the Encyclopedia as the Zelda Holy Scriptures you can’t ignore the facts they set out about Hero’s Shade:
These immediately make that “Link got lost in the Lost Woods and died” theory bunk.
- Twilight Princess Link is his blood descendant, which means he had offspring. Didn’t die as a kid.
- He lived a life of regret not being remembered for his heroics saving both Hyrule and Termina. Didn’t die before Majora’s Mask and didn’t die as a kid.
I guess his child skeleton grew into an adult skeleton. Musta been drinking that whole milk!!!!I don't need them. OOT Link goes through the Lost Woods, as shown in game; a figure whom knows the techniques of the hero, teaches TP link said techniques while in skeletal form, as shown in game.
The skeleton in TP doesn't at all say 'I lived a life of regret', they say 'I could not convey the lessons of that life to those that came after', which very well could be because they died.
Your best point is on the 'blood descendant'; however that is a vague term and I do not know to which extent there is evidence of that in Twilight Princess.
I guess his child skeleton grew into an adult skeleton. Musta been drinking that whole milk!!!!
Stalchildren? Also, if true, that doesn't prove, uh, anything. Incredible reach. You went from saying it was incredibly obvious to this lol.Yes, because there's definitely no precedent for Stalchildren growing in Ocarina of Time........
Stalchildren? Also, if true, that doesn't prove, uh, anything. Incredible reach. You went from saying it was incredibly obvious to this lol.
Sorry can you quote where I said 'incredibly obvious'? Seems like you were a bit overconfident with your rude opening reply, and are now desperately flailing around now that you've been caught out.
YesQuite obviously the beginning of Majora's Mask? Like how could you have possibly missed that from my post?
Its Link (from Majoras Mask)
Ok, so I said it was 'quite' obvious that I was referring to the beginning of MM (Link goes into Lost Woods without fairy) and TP (a skeletal figure teaches TP Link techniques) as the baseline clues supporting the statement: "Because Link went into the Lost Woods without a fairy and later became a Stalfos", which is different from me saying the theory itself is 'incredibly' obvious (I didn't, I said it was more likely correct than incorrect).
Desperate and sad.
Oof, this is a complete rout at this point. Wouldn’t be fair for me to keep replying to them.
Thinking you're slick by calling Phosphorescent Skeleton "them" instead of "her". I know your type
You need to very quickly apologize for this baseless accusation. This is not something I did on purpose, nor would I ever.
I think you're the one who needs to apologize for misgendering her. If this is so baseless, it shouldn't be a big deal.
I literally opened my DM's to do just that before you even replied. Now you need to apologize, because that's gross.
I think misgendering a transgender woman is far more gross than calling out transphobia.
I did not know because I do not know her personally, I have now apologized to her over DM.
I think it just overly complicates things to say that because sequels that contradict each other exist, a branching timeline must have been intentional. Superman Returns or every other Halloween movie don't bother trying to make that case, they just say "Here's a different way things could've gone, take it or leave it." There ARE examples where it is definitely intentional, but things like Mortal Kombat no-number sequel and Star Trek no-number movie sequel make it very explicit.The real absurdity is that people believe the above couldn't happen, which would mean that, for example, Wind Waker isn't a sequel to Ocarina of Time, despite, you know, it being very obviously a sequel to Ocarina of Time that deals with the events at the end of that game.
This version of Link sounds like kind of a dick. REGRETTING that he managed to save multiple worlds but isn't famous for it?[*]He lived a life of regret not being remembered for his heroics saving both Hyrule and Termina and never being able to pass on his technique to the next generation. Didn’t die before Majora’s Mask and didn’t die as a kid.
Not necessarily famous, but he lived his entire life with no recognition of what he did.I think it just overly complicates things to say that because sequels that contradict each other exist, a branching timeline must have been intentional. Superman Returns or every other Halloween movie don't bother trying to make that case, they just say "Here's a different way things could've gone, take it or leave it." There ARE examples where it is definitely intentional, but things like Mortal Kombat no-number sequel and Star Trek no-number movie sequel make it very explicit.
This version of Link sounds like kind of a dick. REGRETTING that he managed to save multiple worlds but isn't famous for it?
He lived a life of regret, he didn’t regret saving the world.I think it just overly complicates things to say that because sequels that contradict each other exist, a branching timeline must have been intentional. Superman Returns or every other Halloween movie don't bother trying to make that case, they just say "Here's a different way things could've gone, take it or leave it." There ARE examples where it is definitely intentional, but things like Mortal Kombat no-number sequel and Star Trek no-number movie sequel make it very explicit.
This version of Link sounds like kind of a dick. REGRETTING that he managed to save multiple worlds but isn't famous for it?
You might think that, but a lot of fans don't. I've been a part of many fandoms over the years (books and games both) and pretty much every long-running series that has any plot at all has a dedicated group of fans who dissect every single tiny word/pixel/etc. to try to come up with big grand unifying theories, connections between events of different entries, foreshadowing to things to come, and so on. It always happens. People like things to connect, bridge gaps, and make sense; they like things to have fun callbacks to other entries, or link things together in cool ways (pun slightly intended), and to find deeper meaning in things. Now whether that applies very well to Zelda or is a waste of time or not is subjective, and it definitely gets pretty silly sometimes! But I don't think it's fair to be dismissive about it either.I don't think the Zelda games have much in thr way of plot, has always felt like a very minor aspect of the series. Don't see any necessity to connect them with a timeline, just seems like a huge waste of brainspace.